Talk:Q386724

---

This item is suggested as allowed value for property P107. Discuss at Property talk:P107. Mange01 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh, only one link in this item, and it's a disambiguation page. Am I missed something? And Special:WhatLinksHere/Q386724 shows many items which links here. --Stryn (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the statement <work (Q386724)> subclass of (P279) <creativity (Q170658)>. I think it did not make sense. --Marsupium (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed subclass of (P279) intellectual work (Q15621286) as it would make sense only the other way round. 01:49, 3 февраля 2014‎ Oursana

Can you point any exceptions? --Infovarius (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right.--Oursana (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

performance (Q35140) subclass of work?

Currently many constraint violations of "performer" or P175, for example In the Flesh (Q722013), are because P175 is used with performance (Q35140), or events in performing arts, such as concert tours. P175 must be used with a "work" and currently a performance is not a subclass of work, but this use is widespread and makes sense to me at least: a performance has a performer. Should performance (Q35140) be a subclass of this item, or should the constraints of P175 be altered to include Q35140 (performances)? --Haplology (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that performance (Q35140) can be a subclass of work (Q386724). --Infovarius (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge work (Q386724) & creative work (Q17537576)

I really have trouble believing these two things can be considered separate. If they are, the division needs to be more clear. They really seem to just be synonyms based on how they're being described and used on Wikidata currently. OmegaFallon (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Infovarious Tagging you since you suggested this conversation take place. OmegaFallon (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

correct tagging to @Infovarius Estopedist1 (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

For me it's obvious that a work is not necessarily creative. My example was phone book but some argue. --Infovarius (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Additionally how do you merge non-adjacent levels in ontology avoiding intellectual work (Q15621286)? --Infovarius (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a huge expert on this but to me, "intellectual work" is a legal term whereas "work" and "creative work" are concepts in common parlance. I don't know how we'd go about merging the levels, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Not it is:

⟨ creative work (Q17537576)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ intellectual work (Q15621286)    ⟩
subclass of (P279) ⟨ work (Q386724)    ⟩

. How do you see this chain after merge? --Infovarius (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I suppose the best way to handle this would be to fully define each of the three terms. Currently their descriptions are:

• creative work (Q17537576): artistic creation
• intellectual work (Q15621286): work created through human thought and perception, including creative work
• work (Q386724): individual intellectual or artistic work

This plus further reading on Wikipedia leads me to find that my personal sticking point is the description of work (Q386724). "Intellectual or artistic work" is a weird phrase, since we seem to have established that all artistic (creative) works are intellectual works. And your point earlier about a phone book makes sense, but under this definition that isn't even a work. I guess maybe just this description needs to be altered? If I'm being honest all of this terminology is really just a bit confusing and obtuse to me. It feels like all three of these things are very similar. Other people can feel free to discuss this but personally my brain is a bit fried. OmegaFallon (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing. I would change the descriptions. --Infovarius (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge work (Q386724) and intellectual work (Q15621286)

First, this is not a repeat of the thread above: not all works are creative or artistic, we know that. These two items, however, appear to be the same: in English, an intellectual work (Q15621286) is a "work created through human thought and perception", and a work (Q386724) is an "individual intellectual or artistic creation". Descriptions in other major languages appear to match. By those definitions, I don't think there are any items that qualify as a work (Q386724) but not an intellectual work (Q15621286). So the latter is not a subclass of the former, but is coterminous, i.e. identical. And as a practical matter, there are no conflicting links to other wikis to resolve. Swpb (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, descriptions seem to be similar. But can't we adjust descriptions according to labels? I.e. what if we exclude the words "intellectual or artistic" so work (Q386724) to be "individual creation" regardless of a technique or a means? IMHO it makes some sense. --Infovarius (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

What kind of work isn't in some way "intellectual or artistic"? Even if we took those words out of the description, all intentional human creations involve some intellectual effort. Swpb (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at the Czech and French wikipedia articles: According to those a dílo/œuvre may be the result of any work (as an activity), intellectual or physical/manual. This does not only comprise artworks or designs/ideas of certain products, but also the concrete products of (human) work (e.g. a particular dress, a particular table, a particular car). I would not consider a particular (physical) table, car or dress an intellectual work, but only the idea or design of this car or dress. At least the German word "Werk" is also applicable to this broader concept (even though I firstly associate it with intellectual works).

So I don't think work (Q386724) and intellectual work (Q15621286) should be merged, but the description of work (Q386724) should be adjusted to include the results of manual work. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What's an example of a work (Q386724) that's not an intellectual work (Q15621286)? Swpb (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I gave some examples in my comment you replied to: a particular table, a particular car, a particular dress, a particular cup. The design of a cup, table, car or dress may be considered an intellectual work, but not the cups, tables, cars or dresses that follow this design. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed: the current French and English descriptions were only added in October 2022 by Vollbracht, probably to align them with the German one. But in this case the German description was too narrow, in my opinion. I think we should just restore the previous versions. What do you think, Vollbracht? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

By its properties, work (Q386724) was meant to be artwork or a intellectual work (Q15621286). A typical Example is written work (Q47461344). As a result I didn't expect to find a sub category of work (Q386724) that is non artistic and merely a result not of intellectual but of physical labor. But with sculpture (Q860861) art is strongly based on technical know how and physical action. As a result I recommend keeping these two distinct. We will have to bend a bunch of subclass of (P279) from work (Q386724) to intellectual work (Q15621286) though. Vollbracht (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You are right. I think it is even better to create a new item for the concept of work described by the Wikipedia articles (including the results of manual/physical (human) work) and to delete this item (or to merge it into intellectual work (Q15621286) after we checked that all subclasses really are intellectual work (Q15621286)). I think the use in the meaning of "intellectual work" is quite established, no matter what the Wikipedia articles say. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I support understanding of Valentina: for me work (Q386724) includes manual works too. Though we should define its place among following notions: artificial physical object (Q8205328) and artificial object (Q16686448). Infovarius (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Some first approach:

work (Q386724) and artificial physical object (Q8205328):

• There are work (Q386724) that are certainly not artificial physical object (Q8205328) (example: any opera, e.g. Rusalka (Q831255))
• There are artificial physical object (Q8205328) that are probably not work (Q386724) (example: any ruin, e.g. Stronghold of Tarambel (Q29617) (while the buildings are certainly works, the ruin rather not, in my intuition))

If people think the ruin example can be neglected / is not that relevant artificial physical object (Q8205328) could be a subclass of work (Q386724).

work (Q386724) and artificial object (Q16686448):

• If we understand work (Q386724) as the result of human work, work (Q386724) should be a subclass. But then there is dbpedias definition: "item on which time has been spent for its realisation. Actor can be a human on not (machine, insects, nature...)" [1]. If the results of the effort of insects are works (example: an ant hill is the work of ants), than it is not a subclass. (Not sure if we want to give this item such a broad scope)
• I think artificial object (Q16686448) is rather not a subclass of work (Q386724): customs can be considered artificial entities, I think - but they are rather not works. One could also argue that numbers are somehow artificial entities, but they are certainly not works. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Good points, Valentina. We should consider animal "works" or robot works (e.g. AI-generated images), in which entity branch to place them. --Infovarius (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)